ArticlePediatric research2024
How scientists should disagree.
Article in Pediatric research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reflecting broader societal trends, a lack of civility has crept its way into scientific discourse. It has become routine for scientists who disagree with each other to make disparaging accusations, most commonly that they are "shills" or are being paid off by an interest group. Instead, we should keep four things in mind: (1) Most scientists who disagree with you are well-intentioned; (2) There could be a failure to communicate; (3) "Hanlon's Razor" - which asserts that we should "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" - is probably true; and (4) Like all humans, scientists have pride and do not like to be proven wrong. Most disagreements result from some combination of these. Only rarely should we consider that a disagreement is the result of something more nefarious, like corruption. IMPACT: Reflecting broader societal trends, a lack of civility has crept its way into scientific discourse. We must reverse this. The scientific community can lead the way toward a more civil society.
Identifiers
39048666What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.